Herald Blogs

Bertrand Delanoë, the mayor of Paris, apparently didn’t write the letter published in the New York Times Monday that criticized the possible (as in done deal) appointment of Carolyn Kennedy to finish out the last two years of Hillary Clinton’s term in the U.S. Senate. The hoax letter called the notion “both surprising and not very democratic, to say the least.” Mayor Bertie didn’t write the letter (the subject of an embarrassing correction on the Times’ editorial page) but his fictitious sentiments were right on. The idea that the children of political leaders have some inherent right to a democratically elected office is not only abhorrent in theory. After eight years of the younger George Bush, we’ve got hard evidence that it’s not only undemocratic but foolhardy. Of course, it’s a lesson that should have been learned after John Quincy Adams became our first legacy prez. (Though, it must be said, Adams had been a dandy secretary of state before becoming an ineffective president. After all, he engineered our acquisition of Florida.) I wonder if our embrace of Kennedy or Bush dynasties might have be rooted in the fairy tales with which we brainwash our young children. The stories and Disney kiddie movies pursue a relentless theme of princes and princesses struggling to claim their rightful thrones after they were denied by some evil conspirator their blood-right to reign over their inherited land and inherited peasants. We grow up with the rights of royalty ingrained in our subconscious. We just had eight dismal years of a real life prince. We don’t need a princess.

Muntazer al-Zaidi, the world’s most famous hurler of footwear and an instant hero to disaffected Iraqis, also threw a bit of illumination into my own life. All these years, I've been thinking that projectile shoes were a sign of girlish affection. Not always as nimble as the President, I have dodged pumps, leather sandals, slingbacks, flip-flops, sneakers, penny loafers (both with and without coin), earth shoes, cowboy boots of the ostrich-skin variety, fuzzy pink house slippers with flop-eared bunny heads over the toes and Dr. Scholl’s original wood exercise sandals. I have been pummeled with stiletto spikes. And I was quite happy to have survived the era of four-inch wooden platforms, which even when flung by an ersatz hippy girl, could knock a fellow unconscious. All the while I assumed shoe bombardment, even when accompanied by bursts of obscenities, threats, recriminations and unkind misinterpretations of my romantic fidelity, was a sign of latent (very latent) affection. Thanks to the great outpouring of serious journalism, social commentary, diplomatic analysis and worldwide scholarly examination after the infamous press conference in Baghdad, I have now come to understand that footwear propulsion does not always mean, “I’m a teensy upset but don't worry because I really, really love you.”

Illinois, led by its sleaze-bag governor, quite obviously has run away with the distinction as “most corrupt state in the union.” Floridians know better. They can give the Heisman Trophy to some undeserving states, but when it comes to “most corrupt,” we get the trophy. We’ve got the hard numbers from the Department of Justice to back our big talk. As our local sheriff might say, as he exits from federal prison, “It ain’t even close.” The New York Times collected the stats on federal public corruption prosecutions from the Department of Justice, Census Bureau and other sources and added up the number of each state’s convicted public officials from 1998 to 2007. “In a Department of Justice tally covering the last decade, Florida wins by its sheer number of guilty,” the Times concluded.Florida tallied up 824 crooks in public office. That was 120 convicts more than the state coming in second (New York). Famously corrupt Illinois could only manage a piddling 502. Compared to Florida, Illinois is a model of public integrity. Even when the Times broke down the states in “convictions per million residents per year,” Florida is still among the most corrupt per capita states. North Dakota and Sarah Palin’s own Alaska are ranked one and two among the states in this ignominious category. Then come some unseemly states one might expect to lead the list: Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Kentucky, Alabama, Delaware, South Dakota. Then comes sunny Florida. We’re more corrupt per capita or otherwise than notorious addresses like Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada. I can’t wait for the awards ceremony.

An odd narcissism fuels the run on guns, as firearm enthusiasts pack gun show and gun shops, telling reporters they fear that the president elect intends to “take away our guns.”
They imagine this amid the worst economic downtown since the Great Depression. Investment banks are disappearing. Car manufacturers and their vast network of subsidiary businesses are teetering into bankruptcy. And last month a half million American jobs vanished into the ether, bringing the losses in 2008 to two million. And counting.
Democrats are plainly cowed by the NRA, despite polls that indicate an overwhelming number of Americans would prefer at least moderate controls on the military-style weaponry and the particular deadly ammunition legally sold in the U.S. Under the best of circumstances, the Democrats wouldn’t wish to mess with the gun lobby. The idea that in the Obama, in such an atmosphere, would fritter away his precious political capital in lieu of say, an economic stimulus package, is unthinkable.
He inherits a broken banking system, two wars, global warming, a broken health care system, decaying infrastructure, a giant trade deficit, a $10 trillion debt, declining manufacturing, terrorist threats, a tenuous relationship with an unruly Russia, an immigration conundrum, the perpetual crisis with Israel’s occupied lands, a looming energy crisis.
Yet the gun nuts think Obama comes into office with a secret agenda aimed at taking away their firearms. Of course, the gun manufacturers wallow in this strange strain of paranoia, which created a mini-boom (in more ways than one) in gun sales while other enterprises are flagging.
The gun people can’t quite grasp the cold political reality. They are just not that important.

The outcry over my reference to the gun show loophole elicited a lot of response from gun aficionados (See the post under “Clarifying the Gun Show Loophole.). But Doug Pennington of the Brady Campaign offered his own, interesting take on the supposed non-existent loophole:

The gun show loophole is real, but it's easy to fix. Federally licensed gun dealers are required to run Brady criminal background checks wherever they sell guns - at a store, a gun show, wherever. Unlicensed gun sellers are not. Gun shows are important because licensed and unlicensed gun sellers can have booths right next to eachother. One guy has to run background checks but the other doesn't. That makes no sense. Listen to this private seller of an AK-47 and an SKS rifle at a gun show in Kentucky, who says, "No background check, no paperwork. You seea gun here you like, pay me for it and take it with you."

If we wouldn't allow this at a gun store, why would we allow it at a gun show? Why would we allow it anywhere? The easiest way to fix this problem is to require unlicensed gun buyers and sellers to find the nearest licensed gun dealer - either at a gunstore, or if at a gun show, possibly at the booth right next to you – to run a Brady criminal background check first. The licensed dealer might charge $10 or $20 to run the check - probably less. Once the check comes back authorized, the dealer keeps the paperwork and the sale can be completed. It's not rocket science, and it's the right thing to do.

Several readers sought to clarify the so-called “gun show loophole” broached, not very artfully, in my column. Albert Caruana wrote:

You state that "gun show vendors aren't required to run backround checks meant to bar felons and lunatics." Every sale by an FFL licensee must comply with the legal requirements for both backround checks and waiting period (no waiting period needed for concealed weapon licensees).
Perhaps you were referring to private sales. If so fairness requires you to have clarified that. Many gun show promoters now prohibit private sales.
Your article leaves readers with the wrong impression. Please do not permit your political views on this issue to mislead a public which has come to rely on your decency and honesty.

Tom Garcia, who supports closing the gun show loophole, was a bit more generous.

As a relatively liberal gun-owner, I agree with most of your article. I recently attended a few gun shows and find the hype driving gun sales a bit sad and amusing. Here is my "beef" with your piece: It gave the impression that background checks are NOT performed at gun shows. As someone who has purchased a few firearms at shows I can assure you that all these companies DO run background checks. (Do a story about how they charge $25 for a fax and phone call.) Individuals may directly sell arms, just as they may do outside of a gun show.
Please do not portray the [stupid, in my opinion] gun shows as an oasis, where criminals buy guns. It is easier and cheaper for a criminal to buy one on the street than at a gun show. I really DO think these gun and knife shows are silly and are preying upon people's fears. I think most people there are not representative of responsible gun owners.
BTW: I voted for and gave Obama more than $1000 and I am on the Miami-Dade D.E.C. as a committeeman from precinct 339 ( the FIGHTING Three-Three-Nine! ). I support gun laws. It is too easy to buy a gun and way to easy to get a driver's license to drive a deadly weapon!
I think it is only fair to mention to readers that purchasers of handguns are subject to a waiting period before picking up the firearm.....usually at a local gun shop 5 business days later, depending upon county.

And Fernando Martinez adds:

Besides being obtuse your column is simply wrong. Gun dealers selling at gun shows DO have to run background checks and are subject exactly
to the same laws as gun stores. The only basis in fact for your statement is that individuals who choose to take their personal guns to a gun show and sell them can do so to another individual without a background check -- just like you can outside of gun shows.
You are a pathetic simpleton. Your editors should realize this is yet another example of why there is such disdain for printed media. I amhappy that subscriptions continue to drop and hope that when you lose this job you won't end up somewhere else where you misinform and promote your slanted social views.

Emiliano Antunez has yet another take on my gun show column:

I respect your 1st amendment rights and strongly disagree with your view of the Second Amendment, which by the way probably has a lot to do with the respect most folks in power have for the First.

"Armas para que" Fidel Castro 1959. I wasn't born yet but my dad lived through it and I'm probably living in Miami and writing you in English because most Cubans went along with that statement and handed over their pistolas.

Your article implies that most of the folks at those gun shows are either lunatics, criminals or aspiring terrorist, I think (on occasion) that those tendencies are pretty much equal within the crowd at the gun show and those who don't attend gunshows.